Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2889 Segments
NewsReaction Economics & Finance

Back to episode — Episode 2889 CWSA 07/06/25

Context —

ast. So it has a precedent. We know how they work. But what it would do is it would take power and attention away from the Palestinian Authority. And it might be something that the Palestinians themselves, you'd have to probably do more than one emirate, but it's something that the Palestinians themselves might be willing to say, oh, well, it's not a state, but we're not going to get a two-state…

← Previous segment →

king about people who were born into other countries and got their citizenship. I'm talking about people who have been here for five generations are still afraid that Trump will deport them because they're maybe not Republicans or something. Can you believe that? That a fairly widespread belief that they could be deported or somebody they love could be deported who's a legal citizen. So that's part of it.

I heard that university scientists are unhappy because their funding got cut. Well, that's true. But as a total percentage of the entire population of the United States, how big is the university, which is really just Ivy League, how big is the Ivy League university scientist pool? Now you could argue whether it's good or bad that they lose their funding, but it's not a lot of people, right? And if they were already Harvard scientists, can you not get another job? You don't have good employment opportunities. There's nobody who's willing to fund you. Your ideas are so bad that nobody's willing to put any money into it. There's no corporation that would benefit from it. What exactly are they studying that has so little value that they would worry about losing a university grant? I don't know.

Then there are a bunch of people who believe they'll lose their health insurance when in fact a smallish number will. But it's the people who shouldn't have been getting it in the first place. And you could argue whether that's humane or not. It feels worse because there's people who are getting it and then it will be taken away if they don't meet the work requirement or they're not citizens. But if you had never given it to them in the first place, if there had never been a rule that said you don't have to be a citizen, you can still get it, if they had never existed, would it seem cruel to continue without it existing? Well, to some people it would, but to others it would be like, well, you can't give everything you have to everybody who needs it. The math doesn't work out.

On another topic, MSNBC seems to go pretty hard at RFK Jr. and they like calling him a science denier of some sort. And they believe that he says nutty things that have been debunked. So they smear him as a misinformation peddler. And I'm wondering, is that because that's the opinion of the hosts of MSNBC or might it be because they get part of their income from big pharma advertising on their platform? So can you trust anything that TV news says about RFK Jr. when the entire model of pharma a

Context —

dvertising seems to be designed to influence how the news tells the news about big pharma? So that's a little sketchy. So is big pharma trying to influence the news to take out RFK Jr.? That's what it looks like. I don't have any evidence that would connect them directly. But since I don't believe any big movements are natural or organic, everything seems to be driven by some money person in the…

Next segment → →